This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Science Vindicates Religion (sort of)

I'm-skeptical wrote: That's right. Time after time, science has looked at what was thought to be supernatural, and upon seeing the evidence, determined that it is not supernatural after all. This has been happening for centuries, with an unbroken record of success. Not once in all of history have the ignorant views of the superstitious been upheld by science. NOT ONCE.VR: Oh really? The Bible says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," which assumes that there WAS a beginning. But was once thought essential to science that the universe be regarded as eternal and beginningless. The steady state theory of matter, the oscillating universe, etc. etc. etc., was brought forward because the universe just HAD to be beginningless. But the Big Bang Theory says it had a temporal beginning. The fact that atheists have decided they can live with a beginning of the universe doesn't undermine the fact that they all considered it beginningless before the Big Bang took hold.

Determinism was thought to be an essential component of a scientific understanding of the world. B.F. Skinner said "You can't have a science about a subject matter that hops capriciously about. Perhaps we can never prove that man isn't free; it's an assumption. But the increasing success of a science of behavior makes it more and more plausible."

To which I can only say "Tell that to the scientists who developed quantum mechanics." Scientists have historically thought that they had to be determinists to be scientists, but last I checked no one wants to keep quantum mechanics from being taught in public school. Again, naturalism can be reconfigured to permit quantum indeterminism, but historically religious people typically rejected determinism, but scientists insisted on it.But if naturalism can be reconfigured at every turn to absorb any and all scientific discoveries, then it "science's triumph of religion" becomes trivial.

45 comments:

"Oh really? The Bible says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," which assumes that there WAS a beginning."

A beginning of what? Science does not tell us that the universe we see is all there is. Theories like the oscillating universe, various forms of multiverse, etc. are still in play. They didn't go away because of the big bang. There is still no scientific reason to suppose that any theistic explanation is the best theory for the origin of the cosmos.

Determinism of mental events is not undermined by quantum mechanics. We still understand that things (including mental activity) are caused by something else. Cognitive science absolutely supports this notion. Even theistic cosmological arguments depend on it.

You are reduced to reveling in the idea that in certain areas, science has not yet definitively refuted your theistic explanations, because there are still explanatory gaps. Big deal. The point I was making is that there has never been a single case of the supernatural explanation being upheld as the best explanation by scientific examination. There is always a natural explanation that works better than the supernatural.

Naturalisn doesn't have to be "reconfigured at every turn to absorb any and all scientific discoveries". That description is more apt for theism. As our scientific understanding grows, our naturalistic view is only confirmed and strengthened. You can't say the same for religious beliefs.

Well, in order for this to be non-trivial, we have to be able to imagine circumstances under science would be obligated, not merely to deny that they have a naturalistic explanation, but actually affirm a supernaturalistic explanation. But if it actually became part of scientific theory, wouldn't it have to be regarded as an unusual kind of natural entity, as opposed to a supernatural one? If science is, by definition, natural science, wouldn't science be overstepping its bounds in so doing?

If I observed a dead guy get up and walk, I'd be forced to admit that something is going on that doesn't fit with natural law. If this event was observed by scientists and anyone else who might be skeptical about it, and they couldn't find any explanation that is consistent with natural law, we might be able to agree that a supernatural event has occurred. The thing about natural law is that it describes the way things behave. There are no exceptions. You want to make it out as if we we could observe a one-time exception to the way things behave, and we'd just change the law to comply. But that's not the case. People would be stumped, perplexed, searching for some explanation, or just convinced that it was a supernatural event. But the truth is that there are no exceptions to natural law. We may not know everything about how things behave, or able to observe everything about how things behave, but we never see a one-time exception to how things behave. It just doesn't happen. Dead people don't get up and walk. Ever.

You miss the point. I'm talking about things that are truly one-time exceptions to natural law. Of course everything we observe has a natural explanation, because everything behaves in accordance with natural law. There are no exceptions. We never, ever see something behave in a way that is different from the way things behave.

If the guy wasn't really dead, then sure, he might get up and walk. If he really was dead, and his brain was decaying and all, he wouldn't just get up and walk. It just doesn't happen. Ever.

Determinism of mental events is not undermined by quantum mechanics. We still understand that things (including mental activity) are caused by something else. Cognitive science absolutely supports this notion.

Seeing how the OP doesn't talk about mental events, I don't see what conclusion I am supposed to draw here that contradicts anything Victor is saying. And since we don't know how exactly events on the quantum level factor into events on the mental level, the conclusion that mental activity is deterministic seems entirely unwarranted.

Sorry Victor, science does not vindicate religion, (sort of) or otherwise. Science has pretty much superseded theism as an explanatory paradigm since the advent of the Enlightenment period in human history. History informs us theism was the standard metaphysical narrative into which explanation of the natural world was subsumed. The theistic model was the flag bearer for over 16 hundred years. There is little doubt today, if any, that science has largely replaced theism as THE explanatory tool about us, about our relationship with the environment, about the world, about the universe, and dare I say it, even about god[s]. History has also demonstrably established that science has been immeasurably successful in bringing knowledge and understanding of a great many things, including so much of what was once considered the exclusive prerogative of religion.

Contemporary discourse is not really about whether supernaturalism is a genuine consideration for science, for that question has largely been answered. The historical record is replete with example after example and evidence of things once deemed supernatural by the best of theologians and scientists of the time that now have a reasonably robust natural explanation. I don't think we need to go through that list. The remaining issue in today's discourse is the difficulty of supernaturalists to, not only recognise science as the operant explanatory paradigm. ”The Enlightenment begins with the scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The rise of the new science progressively undermines not only the ancient geocentric conception of the cosmos, but, with it, the entire set of presuppositions that had served to constrain and guide philosophical inquiry. The dramatic success of the new science in explaining the natural world, in accounting for a wide variety of phenomena by appeal to a relatively small number of elegant mathematical formulae, promotes philosophy (in the broad sense of the time, which includes natural science) from a handmaiden of theology, constrained by its purposes and methods, to an independent force with the power and authority to challenge the old and construct the new, in the realms both of theory and practice, on the basis of its own principles.” [Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy],but to reconcile with this reality.

Today, the influence and intellectual authority of what constitutes the totality of theology as an explanatory model along with its undergirding supernatural metaphysics, is incontrovertibly diminishing. Although you, Victor, would most certainly disagree with my characterisation, they are analogous to the remnants and sound of the Cosmic Background Radiation. Despite the admirable but rather Walter Mitty-esque efforts to shore up theological explanation as equal, if not superior to, natural explanation, the efforts of Drs Plantinga, Feser et al, are largely a plaintive rear-guard response against the inexorable trend in community sentiment and expectations for a stronger, rigorous, testable, evidenced-based explanatory paradigm. And that is understandable. A degree of disquiet is inherent in experiencing the change process.

"There are no exceptions. ... we never see a one-time exception to how things behave. It just doesn't happen. Dead people don't get up and walk. Ever." (4:15 PM)

Uhh... just by saying over and over again there are no exceptions doesn't make it so. You say no dead person has ever come back to life, citing as proof your "rule" that it doesn't happen. Circular reasoning anyone? Begging the question?

I can't even see a rational argument here. Skep simply declares something to be true, and then justifies it by repeating himself. Is there a good Latin term for the "'Cause I say so!" fallacy?

Let's see it, Skep. Where's the proof that one-time events do not occur? And don't even try to say "Well, I haven't seen one." The very nature of a one-time event is that you will not see one every day, or even in your own lifetime. You can't moan and complain that you weren't around to witness one, and then use that as an excuse for denying their existence.

"You say no dead person has ever come back to life, citing as proof your "rule" that it doesn't happen. Circular reasoning anyone? Begging the question?"

It's inductive reasoning, based on the totality of human observation over all of history. There is not one single case of events like this happening that can be verified. Al we have are your faith-based stories that were written to entice people into a religion. No, I haven't seen one, end neither has anyone else. And there's a perfectly good reason for that: They don't ever happen.

"Seeing how the OP doesn't talk about mental events, I don't see what conclusion I am supposed to draw here that contradicts anything Victor is saying."

Read it again. Perhaps you don't know anything about BF Skinner, or what Victor meant by introducing QM as a counter-argument to his comment "Perhaps we can never prove that man isn't free".

Libertarian free will is the theistic position that mental events have no causation - that people can think about and decide things without anything in the physical world determining those mental activities. They like to use the randomness of quantum events to escape the laws of physics, but this line of reasoning is incoherent. First of all, there is no reason to suppose that brains operate on a different plane of causality from everything else - as if we couldn't determine (within a fair degree of confidence) the outcome of a computer operation because of the randomness of quantum events. Second, if a random event should influence the outcome, how does that support the notion that mental activity is free will?

Oh come on. That sounds suspiciously like the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. When theists say things like that it's unscientific, blah, blah, blah- but when the evidence doesn't jive with the fundamaterialist pet worldview, then (this part I love) "There is still no scientific reason to suppose that any theistic explanation is the best theory..."

"Oh come on. That sounds suspiciously like the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. When theists say things like that it's unscientific, blah, blah, blah- but when the evidence doesn't jive with the fundamaterialist pet worldview, then (this part I love) "There is still no scientific reason to suppose that any theistic explanation is the best theory..."

Can you s-s-s-smell what the dogma is cooking?"

Did you ever hear of something called physics? This is not just faith-based wishful thinking.

Oy, it seems to me that you're making Victor Reppert's point perfectly.

When the evidence doesn't fit the theology- well then, of course, that's because there's no God!

But, even when the evidence does fit the theology- there's still no God! I wonder why? Could it be that there just might be a prior commitment to atheism in play?

Victor Reppert provided several examples of the inconsistency. In each instance, when the evidence doesn't support the materialist dogma, it MUST be a "gap" in our knowledge- which basically amounts to a rather shameless retreat into agnosticism.

Some of the available evidence supports theory A. That doesn't mean theory A is true. All of the available evidence supports theory B. That still doesn't mean theory B is true, but it definitely casts doubt on theory A.

The evidence of the natural world supports naturalism. We don't ever see anything that is inconsistent with naturalism.

"Victor Reppert provided several examples of the inconsistency. In each instance, when the evidence doesn't support the materialist dogma, it MUST be a "gap" in our knowledge- which basically amounts to a rather shameless retreat into agnosticism."

No, he didn't. There is absolutely nothing in the big bang or in quantum mechanics that is inconsistent with materialism. Of course there are gaps in our knowledge. To claim otherwise would be positively religious. That's where the dogma comes in - religious dogma claims to have all the answers, whether or not the evidence supports it, and the answer is always the same: goddidit. That's how the gaps are filled.

When I see a gap in our knowledge, I say there's something we don't have a complete explanation for yet. When you see that same gap, you say goddidit.

I won't accuse you of having a double standard. Your thinking is extremely one-dimensional.

While the science deniers, including Victor, on this blog continue to obfuscate and confound the on-going discourse, together with the irreconcilable misfit between religion and science as competing explanatory tools, the effect is to further compromise and diminish theological intellectual and philosophical thinking even further, to that of unsubstantiated and insubstantial opinion.

While they continue to humorously bemuse readers with "The bible says this ...the bible says that..." as a rationale for their arguments one becomes increasingly aware there is precious little epistemological grounding for their arguments other than faith, a faith founded in institutional tradition, a motivation habituated in early-childhood indoctrination.

The comments thus far in this thread do not fill me with confidence that theists understand the process of science. Victor latched, leech-like, onto the formative nature of the process of science and characterise it as if it were a fatal flaw. Either he does not understood, or is wilfully and misguidedly distorting the formative and provisional nature of science as an argument against it. His response to Skep in the OP is largely a delightful mishmash of selected out-of-context items in an attempt to rationalise his perspective against, heaven forbid, two birds with one stone, both naturalism and science.

The trend away from theism as a functional explanatory system is palpable. It is a realisation that we are entering a post-christian era, and it is perhaps closer than we imagine.

You're skating the whole point of the post. The "science" that you refer to has an interesting elasticity that seems to take its marching orders from a philosophical ideology and not necessarily from methodological naturalism. Take Victor Reppert's first example- the empirical evidence showed that there was, in fact, an absolute beginning of the universe. Initially, the response was that the data HAD to be wrong. Why I wonder? Then, when it was accepted, new theories HAD to be devised that are consistent with materialism. Again, why?

This, despite the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence for these theories and to boot, none of these theories can be tested. The stance towards the data will interestingly twist and turn in accordance with a philosophical position and at the end it wall be called "science". It really is too big to fail.

"the empirical evidence showed that there was, in fact, an absolute beginning of the universe."

Right. Science showed that the visible universe had a beginning. It did not show that this was an absolute beginning. It showed that what we can see had a beginning. And please note that this was a scientific discovery.

"Initially, the response was that the data HAD to be wrong. Why I wonder?"

Whose response was that? As far as I know, as soon as the evidence became available, the theory that explains it became widely accepted, except perhaps by a few.

"Then, when it was accepted, new theories HAD to be devised that are consistent with materialism. Again, why?"

Whenever new evidence comes to light it must be explained. Either the current best theory does that, or a new theory is developed. That's what science does. The theory explains the evidence. Materialism was never in question during any of this (except by people who don't accept the evidence). But the big bang theory alone does leave open the question of what caused it. Do you expect science to throw up its hands and proclaim "goddidit'? Get real, dude. That is the response of religious people who aren't interested in evidence unless it support their beliefs. But if you're interested in understanding how things work, you need a theory.

There are several theories about the origins of the cosmos. Theoretical scientists devise theories that explain what we know and are consistent with our current understanding of physics. Surprisingly, they don' tend to support supernatural origins, because scientists who look at evidence are not devoted to your religious dogma.

They don't develop these theories without due consideration of the body of knowledge we already have. They actually involve science. That's not to say there is full agreement. But one thing you can be sure of: the understanding we have doesn't support the theory of "goddidit".

Skep: "Right. Science showed that the visible universe had a beginning. It did not show that this was an absolute beginning. It showed that what we can see had a beginning."

This is correct. The universe can be construed as having a beginning on the basis of what we can observe and determine, from that observation. But prior to the early rapid expansion, all energy, matter, space-time was in a compressed state; a singularity.

Science cannot at this time provide a plausible explanation for the existence of the singularity prior to its rapid expansion period. Equally, the concept of 'ex nihilo' much favoured by theologians is in reality a provisional place-marker in the absence by either theology or science to offer a reasonable explanation for the existence of that singularity.

And before theists get too excited, Prof Laurence Kraus, in his book, 'The Universe From Nothing' was presenting a case explaining that the universe as we know it can indeed be created 'ex nihilo' on its own, based simply on current mathematics and prevailing scientific knowledge, in direct response to the theological conception of 'ex nihilo', and without recourse to introducing an even more inexplicable and abstruse concept of an enacting supernatural entity.

I am pretty certain that whatever future explanation formed it will be a result of scientific investigation rather than theological revelation. We know of the existence of other singularities at the centre of black holes which in turn are posited at the centre of every galaxy. We also know and have observed that matter, energy, and space-time is inexorably drawn into these black holes once the threshold at the event horizon is crossed.

No, it's difficult to envisage a peripheral, let alone a central role for a theistic explanatory system as a basis for decision making within societies and communities into the future.

The issue is not whether naturalism is actually true or false. The issue is how you "understand" science's relationship to the truth of ultimate reality.

If science, by definition, cannot accept anything that isn't non-teleological naturalism , what's the point of invoking it as an arbiter? You blatantly load the dice and then pretend that it's not totally obvious to everyone. It's like a child who covers his eyes and thinks that no one can see him.

"You blatantly load the dice and then pretend that it's not totally obvious to everyone."

That's right. Insistence on evidence-based beliefs instead of buying your religious dogma is loading the dice. It's stacking the deck. How can religious dogma rule the day if people insist on evidence? It's absurd. It's just not fair.

Papalinton: „And before theists get too excited, Prof Laurence Kraus, in his book, 'The Universe From Nothing' was presenting a case explaining that the universe as we know it can indeed be created 'ex nihilo' on its own, based simply on current mathematics and prevailing scientific knowledge, in direct response to the theological conception of 'ex nihilo', and without recourse to introducing an even more inexplicable and abstruse concept of an enacting supernatural entity.“

The philosopher and physicist David Albert published a review of Krauss’s book in the “New York Times”, in which he rejected Krauss’s view that the universe could have come into being out of nothing. The review, which appeared in the “New York Times”, can be read in the following link:

In my view it is by no means the case that the history of science is supportive of naturalism. There are still no conclusive natural explanations for such basic natural phenomena as the origin of the universe, the origin of life, consciousness, and of the origin of species. On the other hand, scientific discoveries such as the idea that the universe has a beginning or the fine-tuning of the universe are certainly more supportive of theism than of naturalism.

As for the claim that there is still no conclusive natural explanation with respect to the origin of species there are even evolution scientists who accept only natural explanations for the origin of species who acknowledge this claim, as there is still no consensus among evolution scientists concerning the mechanism of evolution.

"According to the following contribution there were atheists among scientists who were very reluctant to accept the big bang theory due to its metaphysical implications"

First, you should be aware that whatever you read on EvolutionNews is theistic biased, pseudo-scientific clap-trap. Any information there should not be taken at face value, but must be verified by cross-checking from legitimate sources.

Second, this article says nothing about the initial acceptance of big bang theory. It discusses further development of cosmological theories in more recent years. In particular, it mentions John Maddox in 1989 citing the need for a more complete explanation that goes beyond the simple universe-from-nothing big bang - not that he didn't believe the big bang theory, which is universally accepted in science.

Third, note that this is entirely consistent with what I said: "But the big bang theory alone does leave open the question of what caused it. Do you expect science to throw up its hands and proclaim "goddidit'?"

"The philosopher and physicist David Albert published a review of Krauss’s book"

First, Albert's main criticism of Krauss is that the quantum vacuum is something rather than nothing. That is a metaphysical view, and not verifiable or testable. If you start with something, and you remove whatever is there, what's left is nothing (or the quantum vacuum). Quantum vacuum is indistinguishable from nothing. Yes, things come from it. That's what the physics predicts, and what Krauss says.

Second, if you want to say that Krauss is wrong, then why are you criticizing scientists who are trying to develop cosmological theories that go beyond simple big bang? It seems to me that you don't even know what your own metaphysical belief is. Was there nothing before the big bang, or was there something? If there was nothing, that would be consistent with the theory of "goddidit", and it would also be consistent with Krauss. On the other hand, if there was something, that wouldn't support your belief that God created the universe from nothing. In that case, it certainly would be reasonable to develop a cosmological theory that goes beyond the big bang. In that case, the folks at EvolutionNews are just farting into the wind.

"there is still no consensus among evolution scientists concerning the mechanism of evolution."

Now you have proven beyond question that you don't know what you are talking about (are you Illion in disguise?). This is pretty much settled science.

I'm still laughing over Linton's "[The universe] can indeed be created 'ex nihilo' on its own, based simply on current mathematics and prevailing scientific knowledge." Had no idea that mathematics and "current scientific knowledge" were synonymous with nothing.

I'm really don't want to bust anyone's chops, but I do want to understand the atheo- materialist better. Why is the "ultimate metaphysical principle", God, so objectionable ? And how does the success of science refute the ultimate metaphysical principle.

If one says there is no physical evidence, I am puzzled. Physical existence as such suggests the supreme metaphysical principle. Granted, that doesn't make it true, but it's certainly reasonable. I guess what I find frustrating is the reaction that it's preposterous to think such things.

Ims has said Goddidit several times. Isn't that setting up a false dichotomy? Scientific explanation OR God "doing it"? Why should we think these are mutually exclusive?

"Why is the "ultimate metaphysical principle", God, so objectionable ? And how does the success of science refute the ultimate metaphysical principle."

All I say is that it is not entailed by the evidence. There is no scientific evidence that leads to the conclusion that goddidit. It's not that science refutes your postulation. It's just that science doesn't support it. But what makes it objectionable is the notion that you can have one simple answer that put an end to the quest for further understanding (and that is precisely what is implied by "the ultimate metaphysical principle").

"Physical existence as such suggests the supreme metaphysical principle."

No, only your presuppositions suggest such a principle. Science makes no such presupposition.

"I guess what I find frustrating is the reaction that it's preposterous to think such things."

It's not preposterous so much as simple-minded, because you ignore all other possibilities.

"Ims has said Goddidit several times. Isn't that setting up a false dichotomy? Scientific explanation OR God "doing it"? Why should we think these are mutually exclusive?"

False dichotomy between naturalism/materialism and supernaturalism/god-belief? Please. The two are mutually exclusive by definition. How can you call that a false dichotomy?

ON your view, if science neither supports nor refutes the Supreme Metaphysicsl Principle, why is believing in God so simple minded and why should it stop us from pursuing scientific knowledge? It does seem to me that this is a false dichotomy.

I have considered the possibility that there is no God. I suppose that for much of my life I have presumed the truth of naturalism because that's what many intelligent people believe. After having taken an active interest in these matters, I have changed my mind. At the very least, some kind of non-naturalism seems far more probable to me than the scientism of the New Atheists and company. It 's funny, it was one of the Sam Harris books that opened it up for me. Not that you care of course.

""You blatantly load the dice and then pretend that it's not totally obvious to everyone.""

It's called evidence. Evidence built on earlier evidence, in a sustained, empirical, factual, testable and cumulative way, open always to the possibility to falsification. Contrast that with theism - the goddidit explanatory system. Theists are oblivious to the obvious.

The issue supernaturalists have never been able to reconcile is the conclusion that science has demonstrated the irremediable limitation underlying theism as an explanatory paradigm. It is unsupported by any substantive epistemological foundation, subject only to interpretation, re-interpretation, re-re-interpretation of dogma, and religious faith,itself a product almost universally inculcated from early childhood. Supernaturalists have never been able to reconcile the historical fact:

"The rise of .... science progressively undermines not only the ancient geocentric conception of the cosmos, but, with it, the entire set of presuppositions that had served to constrain and guide philosophical inquiry. The dramatic success of .... science in explaining the natural world, in accounting for a wide variety of phenomena by appeal to a relatively small number of elegant mathematical formulae, promotes philosophy (in the broad sense of the time, which includes natural science) from a handmaiden of theology, constrained by its purposes and methods, to an independent force with the power and authority to challenge the old and construct the new, in the realms both of theory and practice, on the basis of its own principles." Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy

This is the nub of contemporary debate. The theistic approach to modern philosophical discourse can not, will not be able to be sustained as a feasible and reasonable explanatory system into the future. It is a system of its time, a time that is inexorably passing as humanity's knowledge base grows and enhances our understanding.

Goddidit is the automatic, unthinking response of theists to any question of how to explain things that are not fully understood. It sounds ridiculous because it is. They automatically dismiss any realistic explanation, and jump straight to the supernatural, with shouts of "Fatima" to drown out any voice of reason. They swear up and down that supernatural phenomena do happen, but all they have in the way of evidence is stories and anecdotes, which they believe as a matter of faith - not because there is good reason to believe them.

If God really did it, it still wouldn't be a good explanation, because there still isn't any good reason to believe God did it. Faith is not good epistemology.

Followers

About Me

I am the author of C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason, published by Inter-Varsity Press. I received a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1989.